ABSTRACT

Drawing on Kane’s argument-based approach to validity and Toulmin’s later work on cosmopolitanism and diversity, this paper asks whose validity arguments and evidence are being presented in International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSAs), where and when. With a case study of the OECD’s PISA for Development, we demonstrate that validity arguments are assembled, negotiated and transformed by the network of actors. We claim that the challenge of ILSAs is not to establish a single authoritative argument through the displacement of plural interpretations and uses. Instead, the tasks of an argument-based approach should be to create a democratic space in which legitimately diverse arguments and intentions can be recognized, considered, assembled and displayed.

摘要

借鉴凯恩基于论证的有效性方法和图尔敏后来关于世界主义与多样性的工作，本文询问谁的有效性论证和证据将在何时何地在国际大规模评估（ILSA）中提出。通过对经合组织“发展中的PISA”的案例研究，我们证明了有效性论证是由行为者网络集合，协商和转变的。我们声称，ILSA的挑战不是通过取代复数的解释和用法来建立单一的权威论点。相反，基于辩论的方法的任务应该是创建一个民主空间，在其中可以识别，考虑，组合和展示合理多样的辩论和意图。